- The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a good article nomination that was successful. Please do not modify it.
Gibberous Crumb
- Nominated by: Jinzler 17:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Nomination comments: The less intelligent cousin of Salacious
(4 ACs/1 Users/5 Total)
Support
--Eyrezer 05:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)- NaruHina Talk
14:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 
Toprawa and Ralltiir 22:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
CC7567 (talk) 19:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)- Chack Jadson (Talk) 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Object
- Naru
Context on the Clone Wars in the intro.- Qualifying context is needed for the Confederacy and Galactic Republic. NaruHina Talk 07:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not quite sure what "qualifying context" means, as it is a while since I finished learning English at school. If you mean describing what the Republic and CIS are, then that is slightly un-necessary, as that would be adding context to something that has only been added to give the article a bit of context, so if off-topic. Also, I am fairly sure that even the most casual readers will know what the Republic and the CIS are --Jinzler 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I mean is, give it basic context. Such as for the CIS: try it as something like "a group of militant separatists" or something like that. the Republic should at least be specified as the prominent galactic government of the time. Also, I agree that more casual readers would know what these are but remember, these articles are for explaining SW events to everyone and to accomplish that, some minor concessions have to be made to n00bs who are just learning about SW. NaruHina Talk 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- "Qualifying context" is not needed for the CIS or Republic. All the context necessary is present in their titles, which explain what they are. We might make concessions for noobs who are just learning about SW, but we don't make concessions for those who cannot comprehend English. And I've removed the "context" for the Clone Wars in the intro - the CW are merely being used as a timeline reference and have no further relevance to the character. I don't think you really understand context. If you want to inflict your unnecessary explanations in your own articles, well that's one thing, but please don't expect others to do the same, without first establishing a sitewide standard via CT or somesuch. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Acky, but I do understand how to give context. And I have the right to request whatever changes I think will benefit the article while it is nominated which are, of course, subject to the author's approval unless it is a mistake such as a grammatical or chronological error. Also, just because it is a timeline reference does not mean it doesn't need context, what if a person was to write "around the time Luke Skywalker met Darth Vader for the first time?" Yes, that's an exageration but it's a timeline reference the needs context on Luke Skywalker, Vader, and a brief extrapolation (by means of a link) of what they mean as their first encounter. Was it aboard the Death Star when he killed Obi-Wan or was it on Mimban when they first dueled? It needs context. And though I admit I go overboard on contexting occasionally, this is not one of those times. NaruHina Talk 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it is. I don't really understand your example - there's only one "Clone Wars" so no more explanation is needed. It's not reasonable of you to object on this when things like "Clone Wars" aren't given a little explanation (which in their flow-killing form seriously detract from the article in pretty much all cases) when it's not done anywhere else. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from on this, but the way Jinzler wrote the context was not detrimental to the flow of the Intro. It read fine from my standpoint. Furthermore, the point wasn't that there were two possible events, it was to point out that even timestamps deserve contextification and the Clone Wars, like any other conflict, is given basic context in many cases, especially when put through the nomination process. The fact is that there is no CT setting standards on context but that does not mean that your definition, nor mine for that matter, is the definition of how it must be done. In fact, if Jinzler had declined to give the Clone Wars conflict context, if he gave an actual reason to do so, I would have respected his descision and we would not be having this conversation where it does not need to be had. Your reason is that it upsets the flow of the article and, as with any flow probem, that can be remedied if you truly think so. Domineering and simply taking it down because you disagree with it is not the way to settle these issues. NaruHina Talk 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Continuing this debate isn't going to help anyone. If Jinzler wants to add context for the Republic and Confederacy, then he'll add it, but if you two want to continue debating who's right and who's wrong and who has better reasoning in this situation, please keep it off the nomination page. Arguing over this isn't going to improve the article. CC7567 (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- I understand where you're coming from on this, but the way Jinzler wrote the context was not detrimental to the flow of the Intro. It read fine from my standpoint. Furthermore, the point wasn't that there were two possible events, it was to point out that even timestamps deserve contextification and the Clone Wars, like any other conflict, is given basic context in many cases, especially when put through the nomination process. The fact is that there is no CT setting standards on context but that does not mean that your definition, nor mine for that matter, is the definition of how it must be done. In fact, if Jinzler had declined to give the Clone Wars conflict context, if he gave an actual reason to do so, I would have respected his descision and we would not be having this conversation where it does not need to be had. Your reason is that it upsets the flow of the article and, as with any flow probem, that can be remedied if you truly think so. Domineering and simply taking it down because you disagree with it is not the way to settle these issues. NaruHina Talk
- Yes it is. I don't really understand your example - there's only one "Clone Wars" so no more explanation is needed. It's not reasonable of you to object on this when things like "Clone Wars" aren't given a little explanation (which in their flow-killing form seriously detract from the article in pretty much all cases) when it's not done anywhere else. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 00:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me, Acky, but I do understand how to give context. And I have the right to request whatever changes I think will benefit the article while it is nominated which are, of course, subject to the author's approval unless it is a mistake such as a grammatical or chronological error. Also, just because it is a timeline reference does not mean it doesn't need context, what if a person was to write "around the time Luke Skywalker met Darth Vader for the first time?" Yes, that's an exageration but it's a timeline reference the needs context on Luke Skywalker, Vader, and a brief extrapolation (by means of a link) of what they mean as their first encounter. Was it aboard the Death Star when he killed Obi-Wan or was it on Mimban when they first dueled? It needs context. And though I admit I go overboard on contexting occasionally, this is not one of those times. NaruHina Talk
- "Qualifying context" is not needed for the CIS or Republic. All the context necessary is present in their titles, which explain what they are. We might make concessions for noobs who are just learning about SW, but we don't make concessions for those who cannot comprehend English. And I've removed the "context" for the Clone Wars in the intro - the CW are merely being used as a timeline reference and have no further relevance to the character. I don't think you really understand context. If you want to inflict your unnecessary explanations in your own articles, well that's one thing, but please don't expect others to do the same, without first establishing a sitewide standard via CT or somesuch. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- What I mean is, give it basic context. Such as for the CIS: try it as something like "a group of militant separatists" or something like that. the Republic should at least be specified as the prominent galactic government of the time. Also, I agree that more casual readers would know what these are but remember, these articles are for explaining SW events to everyone and to accomplish that, some minor concessions have to be made to n00bs who are just learning about SW. NaruHina Talk
- I'm not quite sure what "qualifying context" means, as it is a while since I finished learning English at school. If you mean describing what the Republic and CIS are, then that is slightly un-necessary, as that would be adding context to something that has only been added to give the article a bit of context, so if off-topic. Also, I am fairly sure that even the most casual readers will know what the Republic and the CIS are --Jinzler 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
- Added --Jinzler 09:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Qualifying context is needed for the Confederacy and Galactic Republic. NaruHina Talk
What freelance agents and why was Nirama meeting them?- The agents are the player characters and the nature of what they are like depends on the player characters, so I can't really say who they are. Why Nirama was meeting with them is already mentioned in the bio and I omitted this from the intro, as it is not totally relevant to Crumb; it is just background information --Jinzler 09:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
In the body, what amphibious creatures?NaruHina Talk 00:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, the source does not state what they are --Jinzler 09:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Approved as a Good article by AgriCorps 22:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)